This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
by 😃
Is اقتران really the term for conjugation in Arabic??? I thought that meant pairing, in fact I know it does, but that doesn't mean it can't mean both.... it isn't تصريف الفعل??? or something close to that?? I know تصريفي means inflectional ... cullen ( talk) 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Summing up the discussion between NN,
jonsafari 23:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC),
Soylentyellow 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) and
Macrakis
20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC) about standard transliteration, together with
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Arabic):
1. Use the
strict transliteration scheme, since this is a lingvistical article.
2. All words and sentences should ideally be: Arabic script (strict transliteration) "translation (neccesary grammar information)"
Please be free to add additional rules of style. What about elidable hamza in al- when preceeding word account for helping vowel? Should this be shown in transliteration? And am I allowed to remove the following discussion (make space and so on).
Sda030 (
talk)
20:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering why most things are transliterated instead of written in arabic? Perhaps this is useful to linguists, but for arabic learners it is somewhat backwards. Would anyone mind if I added in the Arabic versions of the words and affixes? Do you have any preferences for how I format them (eg, arabic words with transliteration in parentheses)?
Good article though :)
IMHO relevant terms should not only be written in the transliterated version but also in Arabic script as to help with understanding Arabic grammar because I find it personally confusing (as well as difficult to read) if only the transliteration is available - even in the English Wikipedia.-- Soylentyellow 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a slight tendency to use comparison with IE languages where the reported typical feature is more or less a peculiarity of Germanic or even English. For example, nominal composition, though common in Germanic (and Greek and Sanskrit), is basically absent from Romance (which uses the parallel to Iḍāfa) and Slavic (predominantly "Nisba"). I don't have the time to work through the entire article, not for now at least, but it would be great if you could have an eye on this.
Apart from that, it's a great article, keep up the good work (my Arabic is too basic to contribute much)!
This is quite impressive, but examples (such as actual plural nowns) would make this page incredibly more valuable. Without it, though, it's still quite good.
Most sections need much greater detail (voice, syntax, complete explanation of irregular verbs etc. etc.)
Dbachmann 13:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I added a couple of lines to the syntax section but I'm grossly underqualified to do much work on this. User:80.162.81.112
This paragraph seems to say that the -t feminine marker was not pronounced during the 10th Hindu month of Pausha (follow the link). Am I understanding this correctly? I'm a novice to Arabic (as well as to Wikipedia, excuse me), and I've encountered some seemingly bizarre aspects of the language, but I can't believe that Arabic speakers would change their pronuncation of the feminine gender of nouns for the duration of one month of the year. I'm guessing this statement simply needs clarification or elaboration. kirez 01:35, 01 Jan 2005 (UTC)
for ayin please use ʿ not `. dab (ᛏ) 15:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have a question (Mustafaa?): I understand there are a few nouns which have the "feminine" ta marbouta in the singular, but not in the plural, e.g. riqatun, riqu:na "cash". My question is, what about adjective and verbal agreement? does the singular take feminine adjectives and verbs, and the plural masculine ones, or is the plural only "masculine" on the surface and still takes feminine agreement? dab (ᛏ) 10:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A lot of the letters signifying the Arabic alphabet and how to pronounce them is missing in my screen, all I see are little boxes, same thing for the List of Arabic names. Really annoying to try to get around this and go through all these loopholes just to find about why I see these danged Cargo-Crates that stupid Gnomes (Issues with my computer/the files) leave in front of these. Took me almost an hour just to get a small clue of what it is and I'm still confused! Have to print these out now...
I think that the pronouns paragraph needs more attention. What about tuin akal-tu for example?
The issue with the boxes is entirely down to your own set up and not the article. You need to search something like "how to make Arabic letters display on my computer" Gwaka Lumpa ( talk) 02:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I've also noticed the empty blocks for the "ayn." I totally understand that this can be very frustrating for someone who is looking for more information on Arabic. I'm proposing to use either 9 or ? (probably the former) to remedy the situation, since these characters appear on almost every computer screen. What does everyone think about this? To the person who made a suggestion as to the transliteration of the "ayn," my screen just displayed an empty block and no character.
I have another suggestion: in order to help those who are new to the Arabic language, I'm proposing to create a phonological chart with the Arabic letter and its transliteration below it (organized by manner and place of articulation, with the terms linked to explanations in Wikipedia). I do not want to redo someone else's work (because they spent a lot of their time in writing the article in the first place); I just want to make it more clearer for non-specialists.
Carmen1973 02:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware of the various Arabic transliteration systems; my problem appears to be with my browser, as you suggested. I have downloaded the IPA fonts, and my browser is set to UTF-8, but still I see boxes. Since you seem to be very knowleadgeable in this subject, do you have any general suggestions and/or links to other websites that would help me fix the problem? I use a PC and have the most recent version of MIE.
Hello, I have proposed an expansion of the article about section on Arabic case endings. I created a table and included a few examples with the case endings in red for the nonspecialists. I have uploaded it to my talk page. Would you mind taking a look at it and telling me what you think? How can it be improved? Also, what are your opinions/comments/suggestions about both the presentation of the transliterated Arabic and the English translation? Should I have also included the Arabic, or is that overkill? Please feel free to edit the examples to include more or change the existing ones.
Carmen 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The current organization of the page seems a little awkward. There is a duplicate discussion of case issues in both the "syntax" section and the "noun" section. Also, what is ambiguously identified as the "infinitive" form in the "verb" section is, in the "syntax" section more correctly identified as masdar; however, it's unclear that the document is referring to the same phenomenon.
The verb section could crucially use a discussion of the different forms/measures (awzaan).
A discussion of subject/verb agreement is missing.
Also, since we aren't using the Arabic script for the examples, is using the root fa3ala for the verb forms really the best idea? I know it's conventional, but if you don't have enough background to read in Arabic, it seems things will be easier to grasp if we pick a consonant that English speakers will be able to relate to more easily. Maybe ktb, drs, slm. What is the consensus on this? Chris Jan 31, 2006
I see that the Arabic transliterations in this article use a special template and are italics. Should the prefixes and suffixes table have the transliterations that way, because I think that may create some problems (would the whole word, or just the prefix/suffix use that form?). I think it's OK now, but what does everyone else think? -- Latinus 15:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, is this article aimed at giving the whole picture or just an overview? If we want the whole nine yards, we could add the stem modification charts of the quadriliteral verbs, doubled verbs, verbs with waw as their first radical etc. -- Latinus 15:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm impressed. I'm trying to learn Arabic grammar and every time I look at the article it becomes more fluid and clear. Thanks!
"a few isolated pockets here and there"??? How scientific! Could anyone more well versed in Arabic dialectology do us the favor of clarifying that phrase, please??? 201.21.202.214 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section on the root system (as in kataba (to write), kitAb (book), kAtib (writer), maktaba (office, desk),..., which is a charactersitic of Arabic?-- Soylentyellow 23:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to show, because I'm anonymous, that I recently made a change to this webpage. I unitalicized the text in the table under Imperfect, under Verbs (6.3). It was VERY difficult to read when it was italicized and looks better this way. Thanks.
Is there a reason why the numbers are declined? Why is the term * 1 wāḥidun listed, and not * 1 wāḥid. It is in my view confusing to decline words, since they can be declined into wāḥidin and wāḥidan as well... I suggest getting rid of the -tu ending in that list.
There are some mistakes in the translation and vocabulary of the examples in the end of the syntax section.
""'alfun wa-tis`u mi'atin wa-tis`un 'asnāni" "1,909 years"
"ba`da 'alfin wa-tis`i mi'atin wa-tis`in 'asnāni" "after 1,909 years"
"'arba`atun wa-`išrūna 'alfan wa-ṯamānī-mi'atin wa-ṯalāṯatun wa-sittūna sanatan" "94,863 years"
"ba`da 'arba`atin wa-`išrīna 'alfan wa-ṯamānī-mi'atin wa-ṯalāṯatin wa-sittīna sanatan" "after 94,863 years"
"'iṯnā `ašara 'alfan wa-mi'atāni wa-ṯnāni sanatāni" "12,222 years"
"ba`da 'iṯnay `ašara 'alfan wa-mi'atayni wa-ṯnayni sanatayni" "after 12,222 years"
"'iṯnā `ašara 'alfan wa-mi'atāni wa-ṯnāni sanatāni" "12,222 years"
"ba`da 'iṯnay `ašara 'alfan wa-mi'atayni wa-ṯnayni sanatayni" "after 12,222 years" "
There is no "'asnani" in Arabic!
Corrected:
"'alfun wa-tis`u mi'atin wa-tis`u sineen(a)" "1,909 years"
"ba`da 'alfin wa-tis`i mi'atin wa-tis`i sineen(a)" "after 1,909 years"
"'arba`atun wa-tis`ūna 'alfan wa-ṯamānu-mi'atin wa-ṯalāṯatun wa-sittūna sanat(an)" "94,863 years"
"ba`da 'arba`atin wa-tis`īna 'alfan wa-ṯamānī-mi'atin wa-ṯalāṯatin wa-sittīna sanat(an)" "after 94,863 years"
"'iṯnā `ašara 'alfan wa-mi'atāni wa-ṯnāni wa-`išrūna sanat(an)" "12,222 years"
"ba`da 'iṯnay `ašara 'alfan wa-mi'atayni wa-ṯnayni wa-`išrīna sanat(an)" "after 12,222 years"
"'iṯnā `ašara 'alfan wa-mi'atāni wa-sanatān(i)" "12,202 years"
"ba`da 'iṯnay `ašara 'alfan wa-mi'atayni wa-sanatayn(i)" "after 12,202 years"
Xevorim ( talk) 07:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Some massive editing by Benwing. It looks like the article needed it, and the new discussion is easy to read, but I think the following points are erroneous. Someone who knows Arabic better than I do should check.
Cbdorsett 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
let me make some comments:
feel free to fix up the text.
Benwing 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added Arabic parts in parentheses to a few bits already and would be happy to do the rest of it. The phonology part might not have been necessary, but I tried it anyway. If anyone is sure about any corrections or errors on my part go ahead and fix them. I wanted to ask everyone's opinion of whether it would be better to write it with or without vowel points. I've done them so far without, but if anyone thinks it's better with, then say so. Slamoureux1 23:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted because those changes were incorrect.
Well, I've corrected the dual, with a reference. The other issues (Perspicacite is right on the links in section titles) have not been addressed, so unless they are I will revert on these as well. Drmaik 05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Why only Literary? Yes, I realize this is formal Arabic but the article is about all of Arabic grammar. Would it not be better to distinguish in the individual sections between Modern Standard and colloquial Arabic? Perspicacite 09:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
(Which I look at several times a day, as I'm learning Arabic and it is a huge help) It says that the prefixes for imperfective verbs are (for example) ya, ta, a, etc. However, that's not always the case: for the verb "to love", for example, the respective prefixes are yu (yuhibb) tu (tuhibb) 'u ('uhibb) and so on. Should I change it so that it reads something like "y*-STEM; t*-STEM; t*-STEM-iina; '*STEM", where "*" is that verb's "default" vowel? Deshi no Shi ( talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all I'd like to thank anyone and everyone that has contributed to this article.
According to the article, every verb has at least an active participle and most have verbal nouns. Now although the chart provides the vowelings required to form these participles and verbal nouns, a definition does not always exist. With verbal nouns this can simply mean that the particular verb doesn't have a verbal noun, but what about the participles? Is it possible that not all verbs have a corresponding active participle? If this is so it should be noted in the text. I will start by clarifying which derived verbs and nouns actually exist for the root ف ع ل in the chart.
Also, how flexible are the vowelings for all of the derived nouns? For example from the root س ل م we can derive the verb-stem سَلَّمَ (sallama) and according to the chart its active participle would be مُسَلِّمٌ (musallimun) and its passive مُسَلَّمٌ (musallamun). However in the Hans-Wehr dictionary only مُسَلَّمٌ (musallamun) is found. Is it possible that مُسَلَّمٌ (musallamun) is the active participle for this verb-stem, or perhaps that only a passive participle exists for this word, or, again is the voweling flexible? Now for the verb-stem سالَمَ (saalama) the active participle مُسالِمٌ (musaalimun) exists and so does the word مُسالَمة (musaalama[tin]) (again this is according to the (Hans Wehr). This word is basically in the same form as the passive participle for verb-stem III in the chart, with the exception of the ending. Are the derivations flexible in this manner as well?
And lastly, can anyone shed any light as to how certain roots have certain verb-stems and why others do not?
Thanks again. codectified 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Even though the article mentions the availability of many stems, I do believe that the 'ifʻawʻala' one is not that rare, especially its maṣdar, as in izliqaq (إزلقاق). So I'm adding it as number XI with the following forms: ifʻawʻala, yafʻawʻilu, ufʻulila, yufʻawʻalu, mufʻawʻilun, mufʻawʻalun, ifʻilalun.
I'm not sure if the numbers assigned to the stems are based on an order that I'm unaware of, but if it is, then the stem I just added might not be number XI, and I would need to rectify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadibk ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Please check the section. -- Anatoli ( talk) 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any relationship between the quran and arabic grammar? Faro0485 ( talk) 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
--Yes of course. The qur'an uses classical arabic or proper arabic, in which proper grammar rules apply. Much of the rules aren't in use with more modern arabic, but the language is still used today in it's proper form as it was when the quran was revealed 1400 years ago.
codectified (
talk)
20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
A plural of paucity existed in Classical Arabic in a few words. It seems to have disappeared in colloquial Arabic. It referred to three to ten items.
Why my contributions in the talk page were deleted? they have the aim of improving the article.
Arabic has infinitive.
dar=he turns , dawaran=to turn
There is another mood in Arabic. حَتَّى إِذَا أَتَوْا عَلَى وَادِ النَّمْلِ قَالَتْ نَمْلَةٌ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَسَاكِنَكُمْ لَا يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ سُلَيْمَانُ وَجُنُودُهُ وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ
yahtimanna in "la yahtimannakum"
yahtimanna is distinct form yahtiman (energitic mood)
Nisba.
There are nisbas with ni,wi,zi (san'aani,mawlawi,razi)
Humanbyrace (
talk)
21:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is nisba with "zi" ending in رازي&مروزي(from ray,from marw respectively)
Also there is infinitive with "an" ending like in "mashyan" مشيان
http://amrdiabcafe.com/forums/t407.html اسباب مشيان الولاد وراء البنات فى الشارع
or djaryan جريان
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AC%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%87_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A9 جريان المياه السطحية
Humanbyrace ( talk) 12:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Humanbyrace ( talk) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
sorry but the verbal noun of "masha" is "mashy" and the one fo "jara" is "jary" ; "jarayan" is another form and I dont think that "mashyan" exists in arabic but these are mistakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.0.99.138 ( talk) 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
-- Xevorim ( talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Nisba in persian is either "i" (perhaps loan from arabic)either "ik" but no zi.
"Tshi"&"dji" are respectively suffixes of occupation in Persian and in Turkish (from Persian)
Turkish nisba is "lV" (V standing for i,ı,ü vowels)
Also even regular verbs could have infinitive with "an"(which is very close to German infinitive ending "en",both Arabic and German being apophonic west nostratic lislakh languages)
As for example we can cite: qatlan=to kill
sayalan=to flow
best regards
Humanbyrace ( talk) 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There is not a single book listed for further reading! Furthermore, the given reference does not match the huge amount of information, which I'm impressed of, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.157.38 ( talk) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been so lucky to have a small private project with my teachers about redoing this article. I have made a new structure, while keeping all earlier information. I will also add a lot of information (hopefully), and compress paragraphs so it will be more of an encyclopedic styled article. I will also add any suitable references. Before June 2010 it should be ready for publishing. However, I copied everything from the article (except templates) to Word 2007, for ease of editing, and therefore you will not see any differences before that time. Someone might have to help me converting it back to wiki-style, I cant seem to get neither WikiEd, nor WikiPlus to work properly.
Please do not use time on the same thing as I am doing now (reorganizing). You can, however, add any additional information, spell check, and so on, to the article as normal. i will update my own edition. Sda030 ( talk) 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The section on the History of Arabic Grammar is very badly and unclearly written, as well as missing any sources. Can someone please rewrite and organise that section? Also removed part about collection of works by Arab Gramatarians by some Persian scholar - that does not constitute a relevant or significant part of the development of Arabic Grammar - maybe past the notion of making some self-deluded Persian Nationalists think they invented their enemy's language. Also, what sources are there backing up the other gramatarians mentioned in that section being the first? And maybe there should also be a mention relating to the slow development of the Arabic language from Aramaic, therefore difficulty determining the exact first Arab grammatarian and last Aramaic gramatarian.
Also according to both Sources 1 and 2, the only Arab schools were Kufa and Basra, which Source 1 mentions only arose following the rapid rise of Islam. Pink Princess ( talk) 12:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding a link to Appendix:Arabic verbs on English Wiktionary, which details the Arabic verb stems from I – XV. Does anyone object? —Stephen ( talk) 05:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for you works
Adjectives can precede nouns in Arabic
for example
rajulun tawil al-qama
Humanbyrace ( talk) 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all thanks for your works I would like to ask if we could say "aynakom" (where are you) in Arabic since we can also say "minkom" (from you)
Also can we say "mankom"=who are you?
Thanks
Humanbyrace ( talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Mr Serafin please permit me to say that you are wrong , indeed we can say "aynakom" (according to Arabic Grammar books like Afghani's grammar) googling "aynakom" gives you near 500,000 results
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=tr&source=hp&q=%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%83%D9%85+
Humanbyrace ( talk) 18:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Many of the articles on Arabic have mentioned a shift from VSO word order in Classical Arabic to SVO word order in Modern Standard Arabic and the modern Arabic dialects. However many prominent linguists specializing in Arabic strongly disagree with this assertion. Their explanation is that the apparent shift from VSO word order to SVO word order is actually the result of topic-comment structure, which is found in all varieties of Arabic, and the different types of discourses that are available and analyzed in historical texts versus modern texts and speech. For example, Dr. Kristen Brustad's "The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Dialects", Georgetown Univ. Press, 2000, states "However, no frequency studies of modern Arabic have yet been undertaken to either support or challenge this assumption. Both VSO and SVO are common enough in all varieties of Arabic to be considered "basic;" a thorough study of word order typology in all varieties and registers of Arabic would be necessary to show if or how the basic typologies of Arabic have changed over time. Until such a study is conducted, the discussion must remain limited to indirect evidence.” Dr Brustad proceeds to present evidence that VSO remains a basic word order in the modern Arabic dialects and that fronting of nouns (subjects and objects) in all varieties of Arabic is best explained by a topic-comment structure of a topic-prominent sentence structure rather than the contrasting the subject-prominent sentence structure of the VSO word order.
Many others have also suggested similar analyses and this may even be becoming the more-accepted view among linguists specializing in Arabic. Although the topic-comment structure in all Arabic varieties is widely recognized, the articles on Arabic only mention VSO vs. SVO and increased usage subject initial sentences in MSA and dialects. It would be beneficial if someone could please add information about the topic-comment sentence structure in Arabic. (The article on Tuareg Languages mentions the option for the topic-comment sentence structure in those languages/dialects that may be a useful example that could be expanded.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.86.55 ( talk) 09:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not entirely correct that kāna yaktubu and kāna kātiban both express the meaning of the Past Continuous Tense. As far as I understand, only the latter does express this meaning whereas the former denotes a habitual, repeated action, i.e. what is expressed in English by 'would'(or 'used to')+inf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.241.225 ( talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is listed at Special:LongPages and it'd be benefitial to split it. It's listed in the Top 50, making it one of the longest articles in the whole of Wikipedia.
If nobody else volunteers, I will do the split.
Azylber ( talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add an external link to this article: consult or download Wright's Arabic Grammar and was about to do so until I saw the warning "Please don't add links without prior agreement". So, who is it that has to agree and how do I communicate with that person? Thank you. Also, the first external link: Arabic Grammar through the Quran is dead. -- Akhooha ( talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Arabic grammar. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Arabic grammar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The article addresses a number of topics, but is severely under-referenced (as far as in-line citations are concerned). The syntax part is too short, many general problems of syntax are not addressed. An issue like aspect is treated as if it is only form, not function. Looks pretty much like C class. G Purevdorj ( talk) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I received a support request at the MediaWiki Support Desk, where a user complained about the contents of this chart.
Note that I myself do not speak the language and so I cannot judge, if what the chart tells is right or wrong. This image contains a number of words, e.g. explosion and damages, but also the words teacher, children and raised.
However, it is true that many of the words in this image somehow have to do with terror, e.g. damage, explosion, collapse, evacuate, arrest, detention, terrorism. I don't think using words from this wordfield is necessary to explain what this image wants to explain. These explanations can just as well be done with other, neutral words. -- 87.123.34.27 ( talk) 10:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, according to wiktionary, there's a form 'ـنِيَ (-niya)', ending in فتحة. Could, sb., please, add a reference to its use with some example? Thanks in advance. -- Backinstadiums ( talk) 11:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to know both an example of that type of plural, as well as the reason for the uncertainty "presumably" added to the statement. Thanks in advance. -- Backinstadiums ( talk) 11:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The article states "Verb initial word orders like in Classical Arabic are relatively rare across the world's languages, occurring only in a few language families including Austronesian, and Mayan.", but VSO is standard in Celtic. -- Evertype· ✆ 23:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Technically, a language's "grammar" includes phonology. I think this article would benefit from a re-title, but I'm not sure what other name could encompass the kitchen sink that this article is. Catrìona ( talk) 20:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
فـ fa- [and] then This is a conjunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamour ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The section mentioned has a few errors which I tried to clear but would like if somebody would properly fixed it. -ka, -ki, -hu, do not produce consonant clusters as the noun they are attached to will always have a short vowel at the end to denote case, so the word would be 'kitābuka', 'kitābaka', or 'kitābika', depending on case, and in no situations would it be 'kitābka'. -ak, -ik, and -uh are produced by eliding the short vowel on the pronoun itself rather than switching them. Could the section be revised and possibly rewritten?
Hai 2402:3A80:192B:4D21:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 14:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hai 2402:3A80:192B:4D21:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 14:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
اردو میں ترجمہ کریں: الأمة العربية ليست كالامم ولا ترمى اهدافا تافهة محدودة بل لها هدف سام رفيع هو الحاض البشرية جمعاء وهدايتها الى الحق والسعادة والرشاد وهى امة قد رباها مرشدها الأكبر رسول الله بسيرته السنية على حب العدل والايفاء بالعهود و اتفاق الاموال في وجود الخير والتأخى فى نصرة الحق والترفع عن سنفسات الأمور 87.228.186.226 ( talk) 09:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)